Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 30 (Thursday, February 12, 2026)

[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 30 (Thursday, February 12, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2190-H2204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LAW-ENFORCEMENT INNOVATE TO DE-ESCALATE ACT

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I
call up the bill (H.R. 2189) to modernize Federal firearms laws to
account for advancements in technology and less-than-lethal weapons,
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). Pursuant to House Resolution
1057, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 119-18 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 2189

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of American in Congress assembled,

TITLE I--LAW-ENFORCEMENT INNOVATE TO DE-ESCALATE

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Law-Enforcement Innovate
to De-Escalate Act''.

SEC. 102. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN LESS-THAN-LETHAL PROJECTILE
DEVICES FROM RESTRICTIONS UNDER TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE.

Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the second sentence of paragraph (3), by inserting
``or a less-than-lethal projectile device'' before the
period; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(39)(A) The term `less-than-lethal projectile device'
means a device that--
``(i) is not designed or intended to expel and may not be
readily converted to accept and discharge--
``(I) ammunition commonly used in handguns, rifles, or
shotguns; or
``(II) any other projectile at a velocity exceeding 500
feet per second;
``(ii) is designed and intended to be used in a manner that
is not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury; and
``(iii) does not accept, and is not able to be readily
modified to accept, an ammunition feeding device--
``(I) loaded through the inside of a pistol grip; or
``(II) commonly used in semiautomatic firearms.
``(B) If a person requests that the Attorney General
determine whether a device satisfies the definition of `less-
than-lethal projectile device' under subparagraph (A), the
Attorney General shall make the determination not later than
90 days after the date on which the Attorney General receives
the device pursuant to the request.''.

TITLE II--INNOVATE LESS LETHAL TO DE-ESCALATE TAX MODERNIZATION

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Innovate Less Lethal to
De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act''.

SEC. 202. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN LESS-THAN-LETHAL PROJECTILE
DEVICES FROM FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION TAX.

(a) In General.--Section 4182 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e), and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:

[[Page H2191]]

``(d) Less-than-Lethal Projectile Devices.--
``(1) In general.--The tax imposed by section 4181 shall
not apply to--
``(A) any less-than-lethal projectile device,
``(B) any device contained on the most recent list made
available by the Secretary under paragraph (4)(B), and
``(C) any shell or cartridge that meets the requirement of
paragraph (2)(B) and is designed for use in a device referred
to in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(2) Less-than-lethal projectile device.--The term `less-
than-lethal projectile device' means a device that--
``(A) is not designed or intended to expel, and may not be
readily converted to accept and discharge--
``(i) ammunition commonly used in handguns, rifles, or
shotguns, or
``(ii) any other projectile at a velocity exceeding 500
feet per second,
``(B) is designed and intended to be used in a manner that
is not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, and
``(C) does not accept, and is not able to be readily
modified to accept, ammunition feeding devices--
``(i) loaded through the inside of a pistol grip, or
``(ii) commonly used in semiautomatic firearms.
``(3) Request for classification.--Pursuant to a request
made by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of a device
for a determination as to whether such device satisfies the
requirements under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall make
such determination not later than 90 days after the date of
receipt of such request.
``(4) Annual review of new and emerging technologies.--
``(A) List of less-than-lethal projectile devices.--The
Secretary shall make publicly available a list of devices
that the Secretary has determined are described in paragraph
(2) and shall update such list annually to take into account
new devices.
``(B) List of non-lethal devices the projectiles of which
exceed 500 feet per second.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall--

``(I) make publicly available a list of devices that the
Secretary has determined are not described in paragraph (2)
but would be so described if such paragraph were applied
without regard to subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof, and
``(II) update such list annually to take into account new
devices.

``(ii) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall annually
submit a written report to the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of
the Senate regarding the annual list of devices described in
clause (i), including a copy of such list, a description of
the devices that were considered for inclusion on such list,
and the reasons for including or excluding such devices from
such list.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Requests for determinations.--Section 4182(d)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section)
shall apply to requests received after the date of the
enactment of this Act, except that any request under such
section which is received during the 180-day period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be treated for
purposes of such section as received as of the close of such
period.

SEC. 203. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN LESS-THAN-LETHAL PROJECTILE
DEVICES FROM NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by striking ``an antique firearm or'' and inserting
``any antique firearm, any less-than-lethal projectile device
(as defined in section 4182(d)(2)), any device referred to in
section 4182(d)(1)(B), or''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) and the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

General Leave

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2189.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2189, the Law-
Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.
This bill will put lifesaving, less-lethal technology in the hands of
more law enforcement and public safety officers.
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted more than 50 years ago,
it was not written with the intent to regulate less-lethal projectile
devices such as tasers.
Unfortunately, if a taser or other device uses an explosive
propellant to discharge the projectile, the ATF classifies it as a
firearm. This makes it more difficult for law enforcement and public
safety officers to obtain and use these devices.
For starters, many States prohibit public safety officers from using
firearms. In at least 12 States, correctional officers are unable to
carry firearms in the course of their official duties. Many State laws
also prohibit or restrict the use of firearms in schools and hospitals,
meaning security officers would be unable to purchase these devices if
they are needed.
For police departments, law enforcement officers can be unfairly
subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for discharging a
firearm than a less-lethal device. This includes my own State of
Wisconsin, which includes in its definition of deadly force the
discharge of a firearm.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate
Act is both necessary and important. H.R. 2189 makes a small but
important change to the Gun Control Act's definition of a firearm to
appropriately define a less-lethal projectile device.
It does so by instituting a five-part test, ensuring only devices
that are truly less lethal will pass ATF scrutiny. It also exempts
these devices from the firearm excise tax, the simple logic being that
police departments and manufacturers should no longer be paying a
firearm tax on a device that no longer is classified as a firearm. It
was never intended to apply to them in the first place, and it should
not apply to them now.
By making these simple changes, we are equipping our law enforcement
and public safety officers with the best tools to keep our communities
safe and our first responders out of harm's way.
Innovation should be rewarded, not stifled, and this bill does just
that. I thank my colleagues--Congressman Correa, Congressman
Schweikert, Congressman Stanton, and all the others who have been
supportive of this--for their leadership on this issue over the last
two Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2189, the so-called Law-
Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.
Law enforcement officers serve a critical role in promoting public
safety. That is why we must give them the tools to do their job
effectively and safely.
However, contrary to what so many of my colleagues have been told,
H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement officers. In fact, it
would put our law enforcement officers and so many others in great
danger by giving dangerous people easy access to serious weapons.
By changing the definition of ``firearm,'' H.R. 2189 would create
dangerous new loopholes in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms
Act, exempting so-called less-than-lethal weapons from our gun laws,
including those that require firearms to be traceable, detectable by
security equipment, and not available to prohibited purchasers, like
felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers. These exemptions would allow
these weapons, which can be deadly, to be sold to anyone, including
dangerous people, without having to undergo a background check.
Law enforcement has no need for this exemption. They are already
exempt from many gun laws and already use all kinds of weapons,
including those covered by this bill without any legal obstacles. In
fact, police departments in all 50 States already use these tasers. We
also know that State and local corrections officers are armed with
tasers within prisons and jails across the country.

{time} 0920

Let's be clear: This bill is designed to increase civilian purchases
of these weapons, and we know this because it

[[Page H2192]]

includes an exemption from the NFA excise tax, which law enforcement
already does not pay.
More than 3 years ago, prosecutors and legal experts at the
Department of Justice sounded the alarm when they reviewed a prior
version of this bill. These experts all agree that:

This bill would endanger our officers and communities by
weakening their efforts to keep weapons out of the hands of
dangerous persons.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives warned that:

These weapons could be used against law enforcement,
security personnel, or the public, creating an increased risk
of harm to public safety. They also would not be traceable if
used in a crime.

If this bill were truly about helping law enforcement, Republicans
would have taken this feedback from the DOJ and the ATF and revised
this bill, but they didn't. The bill before us today poses the same
risk to public safety.
Many of my colleagues share my commitment to making sure law
enforcement has all the tools that they need to keep themselves and our
communities safe. Some of them cosponsored this legislation because
they initially believed this bill was a genuine effort to do that. They
have since learned the truth. Some joined Congressman Thompson's
amendment, which would ensure that less-than-lethal weapons are not
considered firearms only when they are used by law enforcement officers
acting in their official capacity, addressing the alleged purpose of
this legislation without creating a dangerous loophole. Republicans
rejected that amendment.
Now that these Members, who once cosponsored this bill, see that this
bill does not help law enforcement and will, in fact, endanger police
and many others, they are now opposing this bill.
We must continue providing the resources and support that strengthen
officer and community safety, not undermine them by removing the
safeguards that keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous and violent
criminals. We need to be preventing violence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that the bill itself has a ton of
support, to include the Fraternal Order of Police, Major County
Sheriffs, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives, NOBLE, Hispanic American Police Command Officers and their
associations, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
Again, I think there is a ton of support out there, and there is
actually a real need and a number of requests for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Correa), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Law-
Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will save lives. It is
supported, as my colleague has said, by an unprecedented, historic
coalition. Support spans 95 bipartisan cosponsors across 35 States,
including the Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs,
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, Peace Officers
Research Association of California, African American Mayors
Association, Moms Against Police Brutality, and the Prince Jones, Jr.
Foundation.
This collaboration, this coalition of law enforcement leaders and
community justice advocates, doesn't happen by accident. It is because
this legislation is sound policy, balanced, and needed.
Modern less-than-lethal devices like the latest taser systems fully
integrate with body-worn cameras, automatically capturing events and
improving oversight.
These tools reduce the risk and increase transparency, expanding the
evidence record around use-of-force incidents. It provides clarity for
agencies, manufacturers, and regulators without--let me repeat,
without--weakening gun laws.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this measure.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose the Law-Enforcement
Innovate to De-Escalate Act, a very disingenuous title for a bill that
doesn't mention law enforcement through the text of the bill.
This bill does weaken gun laws in this country. This bill will lead
to more ghost guns across this country. I promise you that within weeks
of this being passed, files will be online for people to be able to 3D
print just the few parts that will be needed to transform a taser that
uses gun powder to a gun that is going to be able to shoot bullets.
Then, within months, people would be able to purchase the same parts
online or in their local gun store.
The sponsor of this bill says that it makes it possible for law
enforcement to obtain tasers. They don't need this bill to do that. In
fact, this bill isn't even tailored specifically to law enforcement. It
changes gun laws in this country.
Law enforcement uses tasers in all 50 States. Gun violence is already
the leading cause of death for children in our country. This Congress
does not need to be in the business of weakening the laws that we do
have, but we do need to be in the business of doing what we need to do
to end gun violence in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind Members, again, that a lot of the accusations
that this will create other avenues for individuals to get firearms is
just not true. To be classified as a less-than-lethal device under this
bill, the device may not accept firearm ammunition. I don't know how
much clearer that can be.

There are no firearm magazines involved with these weapons at all,
and they do not have high-velocity projectiles.
There are a lot of scare tactics being used to try to paint this as
if it is being extended to other firearms. It is not.
This would also prevent these ideas from taking hold amongst
discussions about ghost guns, which is something that is out there on
the street. For any weapon that also has kits that can be converted to
a firearm, it doesn't apply to them.
This bill also requires ATF to deny classification to any device that
could be readily modified into a firearm.
I know there is a lot of hearsay, a lot of thoughts about where this
could go in the future, but, quite honestly, that is not the way this
bill was drafted. It is not going to lend itself to being used that
way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
Georgia for her extraordinary leadership for gun safety and public
safety in America.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would rip a dangerous new loophole in the Gun
Control Act by changing the definition of firearm throughout the entire
criminal code to exclude from coverage certain less-than-lethal but
still highly dangerous weapons, such as tasers, which have been
identified as a contributing factor in more than 500 deaths throughout
the United States of America.

{time} 0930

Mr. Speaker, this bill would exempt these weapons, which are
currently classified as firearms, from all regulations under all
Federal firearm laws. These weapons would be exempted from the laws,
regardless of who uses, purchases, possesses, or manufactures them.
Mr. Speaker, 20 million people who are presently not allowed to
possess or buy firearms in this country--convicted domestic abuses,
convicted felons in every State, fugitives, and other prohibited
purchasers--would legally be able to buy these dangerous weapons, like
tasers, that are designed to incapacitate their targets.
A convicted domestic felon, who has been deprived of his right to
have firearms because he has been proven to be

[[Page H2193]]

a danger to people in his family, in his home, his wife, his
girlfriend, would be able to go out and get a taser. They would be able
to go and get that taser without going through a single background
check. They would just be able to go get it.
The bill exempts these weapons from the requirement that they have a
serial number and that they be traceable so that law enforcement can
identify their owners if they are used in violent crimes.
It would also exempt them from the Undetectable Firearms Act, which
requires that firearms be detectable by metal detectors and X-ray
machines used at airports. This detection element is key to preventing
weapons from getting where they shouldn't be and preventing serious
crimes.
If the bill becomes law, nothing would stop a convicted felon or a
convicted domestic violence abuser from purchasing an undetectable
taser and smuggling that weapon past security, onto an airplane, into a
school area, indeed, into the Capitol, unbeknownst to anyone before it
is too late. The bill would make everybody less safe.
Supporters say it is needed so law enforcement can use these less-
than-lethal weapons. Mr. Speaker, 18,000 law enforcement agencies are
already exempt from many of the provisions in this act and are already
using taser technologies. Everybody knows that police have access to
tasers. Police departments in all 50 States are using tasers today.
Likewise, the tax exemption in this bill does nothing for law
enforcement agencies either because they already purchase these weapons
completely free of the excise tax.
The combination of these exemptions is no accident. They do nothing
for law enforcement. They both provide unfettered, even tax-free,
access to dangerous weapons to civilians, including at least 20 million
who shouldn't have them and wouldn't have them under current law.
Supporters argue the change is needed because the classification of
these weapons as firearms may result in the use of the weapon being
considered deadly force, even though the device is designed to be less
than lethal.
We have been asking for years, and they cannot provide us a single
case where this problem exists. In fact, courts have readily
distinguished between deadly force and intermediate force in cases
involving law enforcement.
They don't have a single case. They just say that some State attorney
somewhere heard from another lawyer they were nervous about it. Mr.
Speaker, come on. That is not how we should be legislating in the
Congress of the United States.
Congressman Mike Thompson and 18 of our colleagues submitted an
amendment to ensure that less-than-lethal weapons are not considered
firearms only when they are used by law enforcement in their official
capacity, which is purportedly what this is about. They rejected it.
The Republicans didn't want to hear it because we know that, in fact,
there is a commercial purpose that pervades this entire legislation. It
is all about opening up a huge, new market to sell tasers, including to
millions of people who nobody should want to have them.
I have repeatedly supported and will continue to support legislation
to give law enforcement every tool and training they need to keep us
safe. I have got to oppose this legislation that could put law
enforcement officers and the rest of us in danger.
I stand with the huge number of gun safety groups working to combat
gun violence and domestic violence and who strongly oppose and condemn
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in opposing H.R. 2189.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the ranking member that all U.S. States
and territories already criminalize misuse of less-than-lethal devices
through existing assault and battery laws.
Mr. Speaker, 42 States have explicit statutory definitions for less-
than-lethal devices. Of those 42 States, 34 already prohibit possession
by violent felons and domestic abusers, they impose age restrictions,
and impose criminal penalties for misuse. Several States even require
permits, licenses, or a background check to purchase or possess these
devices.
This is not something that the State legislatures aren't aware of. As
a matter of fact, I have said before, I think that there may be some
State legislatures that will react to the legislation before us today
and possibly come up with other items that States have already put in
place that probably will support law enforcement in this area.
I think suggestions that the bill will put these devices in the hands
of violent felons or the general public are blown way out of proportion
and that H.R. 2189 preserves State regulations on these devices. It
does not weaken existing safeguards against misuse.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
bill because it would make us less safe. Police already have access to
less-than-lethal weapons like tasers. They don't need a change in
the law. That is not an excuse for changing the law.

This bill expands access to dangerous, prohibited individuals by
stripping away Federal safeguards. Tasers may not shoot bullets, but
they are still dangerous in the wrong hands.
This bill would mean that anyone can buy them without a background
check including people convicted of serious violent crimes and domestic
abusers with restraining orders against them.
This bill would also eliminate serialization, making these dangerous
devices untraceable. H.R. 2189 is a reckless expansion of the gun
industry.
Mr. Speaker, because we all care about public safety, I urge my
colleagues to stand with me and my colleagues in opposition to this
dangerous piece of legislation.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, when I first heard about this bill, I thought
it was very interesting that my Republican colleagues had this newfound
conviction in helping to prevent law enforcement doing bad things to
people and working to de-escalate law enforcement.
I am someone who has been a victim of the abuse of law enforcement,
and I just haven't heard my colleagues ever talk about it. I came at
this bill skeptically when I looked at it. It turns out the bill itself
was pretty much written by a corporation, Axon, that wants to sell a
new type of taser.
Let's be clear with everyone. Anyone can buy a taser right now. I
would ask everyone watching to go online and look at the fact that
anyone can buy it. It can be purchased on Amazon. Anyone can buy a
taser right now.
This has to do with new technology that uses gunpowder. This is the
reason the ATF decided to regulate this years ago. This doesn't have to
do with de-escalating law enforcement, which has tasers in all 50
States. This has to do with selling more weapons and firearms, and I
encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the Members we have 22 Democrat
cosponsors on this bill. I am sure that those Members are hearing from
their own local law enforcement. I am sure they are hearing from their
chiefs of police. I am sure they are hearing from their sheriffs.
I am sure that they are hearing from some private security firms that
want to be able to access this technology that has been there for some
time and has been proven to be a de-escalator in these very tense
situations that law enforcement officers find themselves in.
Mr. Speaker, I will say Wisconsin, my State, defines deadly force in
its use-of-force policy as: The intentional use of a firearm or other
instrument that creates a high probability of death or great bodily
harm.

{time} 0940

That is what we are trying to overcome, is this definition that does
not fit this new technology.

[[Page H2194]]

Wisconsin already regulates the use of tasers and stun guns at the
State level. You must be over 18 to own a stun gun or a taser, and you
must be 21 and possess a valid concealed carry permit to carry in the
public.
This is not going to be unchecked. There are absolutely going to be
legislatures that will revisit this. It is currently a felony to carry
a stun gun or a taser in public without a valid permit. It is illegal
to possess stun guns or tasers for those who had prior felony
convictions.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of this has already been thought out. It is law
enforcement members who think about these items each and every day. It
is those in leadership positions who think about these items, and we
are responding to that. That is simply what we are doing here.
Once again, I think it is a great bill. I hope that Members support
it. It sounds like it is going to be what I would expect to be a solid,
bipartisan vote today.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.R. 2189.
Let's get honest about what this bill does and doesn't do. It does
not require training. It does not set standards. It does not improve
accountability, and it does not apply only to law enforcement.
It does carve out a sweeping exemption in our Federal firearms laws
and makes it easier for dangerous people to access dangerous weapons
with fewer safeguards.
Supporters keep saying that this bill is about helping law
enforcement, but if that were true, the bill would mention law
enforcement. It doesn't. Law enforcement agencies already have the
ability to procure less-lethal tools and are already exempt from many
Federal firearm requirements.
Let's talk about who opposes this bill. It is opposed by Brady,
Everytown for Gun Safety, GIFFORDS, Newtown Action Alliance, Sandy Hook
Promise Action Fund, Jewish Women International, Catholics for Family
Peace Education and Research Initiative, Illinois Accountability
Initiative, Just Solutions, Legal Momentum, and the National Domestic
Violence Hotline.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 5 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement, who
already uses these weapons in all 50 States. It does not provide any
new tools or training that would reduce police shootings or promote the
safety of officers or the public.
Instead, it makes dangerous weapons widely available to everyone,
including those who should not have them. It allows those weapons to be
untraceable, undetectable by equipment, and sold to anyone without a
background check.
This bill is especially dangerous for those experiencing domestic
violence since this bill provides easy, legal access to weapons that
are designed to control and incapacitate their target and can be
deadly. Groups that combat domestic violence and gun violence and who
support public safety all oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters from various
organizations opposing this bill.

February 5, 2026.
Hon. John Thune,
Senate Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Senate Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
To Majority Leader Thune, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker
Johnson, and Leader Jeffries: We write to express our strong
opposition to H.R. 2189/S. 1283, the Law Enforcement Innovate
to De-Escalate Act and H.R. 4242, the Innovate Less Lethal to
De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act. While the stated intent of
these pieces of legislation is to promote the use of ``new
less-than-lethal technologies, such as long-range tasers'' by
law enforcement in lieu of traditional firearms, they do not
reference law enforcement at all, and are unnecessary,
reckless, and would have far broader implications for public
safety. These bills would create a loophole for firearm
access by prohibited individuals by effectively creating a
new legal market for untraceable weapons. Additionally, they
will upend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives' (ATF) enforcement of firearm laws, allow for the
development and sale of weapons that are properly prohibited
by law, and make ``less-than-lethal'' devices that employ
explosive propellant available to the public, including
individuals convicted of serious violent crimes, without any
federal regulation. Furthermore, while both bills present
their own independent public safety concerns, in tandem,
there are effectively no limits to what kinds of ``less-than-
lethal'' weapon systems the gun industry may develop. Even
more troubling, the legislation contains no prohibition or
limitations on modifications that could turn these devices
into lethal weapons. While we applaud bipartisan efforts to
decrease the risk of lethality in law enforcement encounters
and commend Congress' commitment to encourage de-escalation
tactics, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283 and H.R. 4242 as written
and urge members of Congress to oppose these bills in their
current form.

Unnecessary for Law Enforcement

The sponsors of these pieces of legislation contend that
their purpose is to increase access to and limit liability
for law enforcement use of certain less-than-lethal devices,
including specific types of TASERs, which are classified as
firearms because they use explosive propellant as opposed to
compressed gas. The text of these bills does not mention law
enforcement, either directly or by virtue of statutory
changes, in any capacity. Thus, the changes to the federal
code included in these bills win apply equally to all
persons, including individuals convicted of serious violent
crimes.
Federal law enforcement entities, such as ICE and CBP,
already widely employ such devices, and have entered into
procurement contracts worth over $35 million for Taser
systems in just the last few years, including at least $15
million for the Taser lo weapons system, a firearm-classified
less-than-lethal device.
Furthermore, state and local governments, along with their
accompanying law enforcement agencies, already procure and
deploy vast numbers of firearms, including less-than-lethal
devices classified as firearms. In fact, many of the civilian
requirements for firearms purchases are waived for agencies
and even individual officers purchasing weapons for service,
including background checks and prohibitions on purchasing
firearms across state lines. Such purchases are even exempted
from federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. Thus,
there is no federal constraint on law enforcement's
procurement of TASERs or other less-than-lethal devices that
are classified as firearms.
Proponents of these bills suggest that state and local law
enforcement are restrained from deploying firearm-classified
less-than-lethal devices, including TASERs that fall under
the definition of firearm, because of concerns about
liability, specifically that their use would inherently
constitute ``deadly force'' because of their firearm
classification. However, if such constraints exist at all,
they are a function of state or local laws. In fact, federal
regulations and courts have held that the use of less-than-
lethal devices, even those classified as firearms, does not
constitute deadly force on its own. Furthermore, deregulating
such devices under federal law would not absolve most law
enforcement agencies from such liability, as nearly every
single state has a statutory definition of firearm that is
functionally equal to that contained in U.S. code. Therefore,
removing these less-than-lethal devices from the federal
definition of ``firearm'' would not resolve this issue.
In fact, law enforcement agencies are already utilizing
firearm-classified less-than-lethal devices in every state at
every level: states, counties, towns, villages, townships,
and even correctional facilities have already deployed them
and many more are moving to adopt them. Moreover, even in
states with use of force policies that stipulate that the use
of a firearm constitutes deadly force, local department use
of force policies specifically enumerate that the Taser 10, a
firearm-classified device, constitutes ``non-lethal force.''

The Law Enforcement Innovate to
De-Escalate Act (H.R. 2189/S. 1283)

At its core, H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would deregulate ``less-
than-lethal projectile devices'' currently classified as
firearms under federal law and, therefore, subject to
important and long-standing public safety protections. In
doing so, these high-powered ``less-than-lethal'' devices
would become available to the general public and prohibited
persons alike without these protections all because this
legislation would no longer treat them as

[[Page H2195]]

``firearms.'' In addition, because H.R. 2189/S. 1283 do not
prohibit modification, there is nothing to prohibit a
convicted felon, domestic abuser, or anyone else for that
matter, in possession of such a ``less-than-lethal'' device
from turning it into a fully lethal weapon. At the same time,
this legislation would provide the firearms industry with a
roadmap to innovate ``less-than-lethal'' weapons that, but-
for H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would be considered ``firearms,'' to
make an end-run around existing federal law, which would
effectively establish a new, legal ghost gun market. H.R.
2189/S. 1283 radically alters the definition of ``firearm''
under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).
Under the GCA, a ``firearm'' includes ``any weapon which
will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive,'' as well as ``the
frame or receiver of any such weapon,'' which houses the
critical fire control components and is the only part of a
firearm that is regulated under federal law on its own.
H.R. 2189/S. 1283 changes this definition to create a new
class of weapons, ``less-than-lethal projectile devices,''
that are exempted from all federal regulation under the GCA
and would no longer require serialization of their frames or
receivers, background checks when they are transferred, or
paperwork for their manufacture, distribution, or sale.
Exempting these devices from basic public safety
requirements creates a dangerous loophole for prohibited
persons--such as individuals with felony or domestic violence
convictions--to access deadly weapons, creating a new legal
market for untraceable weapons. While H.R. 2189/S. 1283 does
stipulate that devices would need to be designed and intended
to be used in a manner not likely to cause death or serious
bodily harm, and that they may not be readily convertible to
fire ammunition commonly used in most other firearms, the
bill neither prohibits nor penalizes the modification of
these devices for such purposes, effectively deregulating
fIrearm access even for prohibited individuals.
Given the long history of modifying weapons to make them
even more dangerous, it is not hard to imagine scenarios
where unscrupulous gun industry actors would seize on this
dangerous definitional change to produce their own ``less-
than-lethal projectile devices'' that could later be more
easily modified to be fully lethal. For the last decade, the
gun industry used ambiguity in the existing regulation of
firearms to create a market for unfinished frames and
receivers, as well as kits to finish assembling them, which
were the basis for the ghost gun market before the ATF
promulgated a rule to regulate them as firearms. Aside from
frames or receivers, all other firearm components are
entirely unregulated under federal law, making it inevitable
that kits and parts to modify these ``less-than-lethal
projectile devices'' will become commercially available, and
schematics for 3D-printed conversion components will also
become available online.
More importantly, a change in the definition of ``firearm''
may upend all ATF enforcement of the law with regard to
firearms. The Supreme Court recently ruled in VanDerStok that
ATF's regulation entitled ``Definition of `Frame or Receiver'
and Identification of Firearms'' was properly conceived and
implemented--that ``the GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to
regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or
receivers. Changing the definition of ``firearm'' such that
an entire class of weapons (and their attending frames and
receivers) are no longer ``firearms'' would create new
opportunities for the industry to challenge and evade firearm
regulations. The Supreme Court's recent case law in
VanDerStok and Cargill, where the court ruled that bump
stocks did not satisfy the definition of ``machinegun,''
shows the importance of carefully crafted, thorough
definitions in firearms statutes.
While the legislation says that the device cannot be
``designed and intended and may not be readily converted to
accept and discharge . . . projectile[s] at a velocity
exceeding 500 feet per second,'' it ignores the fact that
such devices, as with all firearms, do not by themselves
determine the velocity of the projectiles they fire, but it
is the ammunition which is the determinant of velocity.
Further, while the bill prohibits manufactured devices from
being able to accept ammunition ``commonly used in handguns,
rifles, and shotguns,'' the frame or receiver of a firearm
often does not determine the type of ammunition that it can
fire on its own. Often, it is the other, unregulated
components of the firearm that determine that factor.

The Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act (H.R.
4242)

This bill would create dangerous exemptions to the
definition of ``firearm'' under the National Firearms Act
(NFA). The National Firearms Act covers certain firearms and
accessories determined by Congress almost a century ago to be
particularly dangerous. In turn, Congress imposed strict
regulations on the manufacture and sale of these weapons and
accessories, requiring approval from ATF after a background
check, the submission of fingerprints and a photograph,
registration of the weapon, as well as a tax stamp. The
weapons covered by the NFA are very limited in scope,
including machine guns, destructive devices such as grenade
launchers and large-bore rifles and shotguns (greater than
.50 caliber), and firearms that fall under the category of
``any other weapon'' such as firearms incorporated into other
common objects or disguised to be undetectable as firearms,
i.e., umbrella or flashlight guns.
This bill would remove NFA registration requirements and
deregulate the private transfer of certain devices that would
otherwise be classified as firearms under the NFA. This
includes destructive devices, including devices that would
otherwise be classified as grenade launchers, large-bore
(greater than .50 caliber) weapons, kinetic impact devices,
and immobility devices classified as ``any other weapon,''
including bola devices, so long as they fell under the
definition of a ``less than lethal projectile device''--a
definition which is both alarmingly easy to satisfy and of
which certain elements can be waived at the discretion of the
Secretary of the Treasury. While law enforcement agencies
have access to such devices, these bills would establish
broad unregulated civilian access, even for those with
prohibiting criminal convictions.

Automated and Undetectable Weapons Systems

While both H.R. 2189/S. 1283 and H.R. 4242 present their
own independent public safety concerns; in tandem, there are
effectively very few limits to what kinds of ``less-than-
lethal'' weapon systems the gun industry may develop after
their enactment--which could be sold directly to the public
without regulation.
Alarmingly, as these devices would no longer qualify as
``firearms'' under any federal statute, they would no longer
be subject to the Undetectable Firearms Act (UFA), recently
reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan and law enforcement
support, paving the way for the incorporation of firearm
technology into ``less-than-lethal'' area denial devices,
robotics, and even armed drones. While some of these weapon
systems already exist--such as the TASER Shockwave,
effectively a TASER claymore that can shoot dozens, or even
hundreds, of projectiles at the same time for crowd control--
they rely on compressed gas, making them large and cumbersome
to deploy. The incorporation of explosive propellant would
create opportunities to miniaturize these systems and deploy
them using automated or remote systems.
Finally, these bills would completely undermine the UFA,
making it legal to incorporate firearm technology into
devices that are specifIcally designed to evade all standard
security measures, such as metal detectors and X-ray
machines, all available for unregulated civilian use.

Conclusion

Deregulating these ``less-than-lethal'' devices will put
lives at risk, especially the most vulnerable in society.
Because these devices would no longer fall under the legal
definition of ``firearm,'' they would be available to all
members of the public without a background check and without
a prohibition on modification. Even with those safeguards,
these bills could open a brand new market for dangerous
weapons that are obtainable by anyone, including prohibited
persons. Despite the stated intent, these bills are not
designed to benefit law enforcement and will instead place
them at risk as they encounter these weapons more frequently
on the streets. As such, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283 and H.R.
4242 and urge members of Congress not to support them.
Sincerely,
Brady.
Community Justice Action Fund.
Everytown for Gun Safety.
GIFFORDS.
Newtown Action Alliance.
____

Hon. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jamie Raskin,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Raskin: On behalf
of Sandy Hook Promise, a national nonprofit committed to
preventing violence and other acts that harm children, we
write to share our opposition to H.R. 2189 and S. 1283, the
Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. This legislation
has the potential to deregulate certain TASERs and other
less-than-lethal devices currently classified as firearms.
While we appreciate Congressional efforts to decrease the
potential for lethality during interactions with law
enforcement, especially for children, the legislation could
create expanded harm to young people and does not increase
access to less than lethal technology for law enforcement in
a meaningful way.
The Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act could also
lead to a widespread increase in the availability of less-
than-lethal devices, including TASERS, for general-public
use. While these devices can cause serious bodily harm when
used on adults, they pose an even greater risk to children.
Even manufacturers of these devices acknowledge that
deploying them on young people increases the risk of death or
severe injury. It is therefore dangerous to expand access to
these devices before creating strong guardrails to ensure
they are not deployed against children.
Sandy Hook Promise applauds Congress for working on
bipartisan legislation to reduce the use of lethal force, and
we are eager to

[[Page H2196]]

work with you if this bill advances out of Committee. We
encourage Congress to pursue avenues such as conducting
hearings or requesting a study from the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide clear guidance
around the use of force against youth. We are happy to meet
any time with your offices on this issue.
Sincerely,

Elizabeth Murphy,

Senior Vice President of Policy and Partnerships,
Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund.
____

February 9, 2026.
Speaker Mike Johnson,
House of Representatives.
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries,
House of Representatives.
To Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: In 2014, a
Washington, DC resident (name withheld to protect the
victim's privacy) abused his wife with a TASER, repeatedly
shocking her in the face and head. While she was still
suffering the effects of the TASER, he repeatedly hit her in
the head with a baseball bat, punched her multiple times in
the face, and then sexually assaulted her. In 2018, a New
Jersey man threatened his girlfriend repeatedly with a TASER
in the course of raping her several times over multiple
incidents. Eventually, he carried through with his threat,
tasing her in the neck and raping and sodomizing her.
These incidents are both horrific and emblematic of a
larger issue: domestic abusers' use of weapons to exert power
and coercive control over their victims. Abusers threaten the
victim, the children, pets, and others. As a nation, we
should erect more barriers to domestic abusers acquiring
weapons, not demolish existing protections. But that is
exactly what H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would do by undermining laws
designed to keep so-called ``less-than-lethal projectile
devices,'' such as TASERs classified as firearms, and ghost
guns out of the hands of adjudicated abusers.
To be clear, despite their marketing, TASERs are not always
``less-than-lethal,'' as claimed in H.R. 2189. Perhaps they
are less lethal than other firearms, but between 2012 and
2021, 538 people were killed by TASERs or stun guns. And
studies that have found TASERs have only minor health impacts
were not only primarily funded by the manufacturer, they did
not mimic real-life situations, having exclusively healthy
subjects, a short exposure time, and no long-term follow-up.
Moreover, domestic violence continues or for some populations
even escalates during pregnancy, and there is evidence that
the use of a TASER on a pregnant woman can cause her to
miscarry.
Under current federal law, adjudicated domestic abusers
(with a few notable exceptions) are prohibited from
possessing TASERs that are classified as firearms in addition
to ghost guns and traditional firearms. Removing such TASERs
and other ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' modified to
be lethal from the definition of a ``firearm'' in 18 USC
921(a) will not only allow adjudicated domestic abusers to
acquire projectile weapons without a background check, it
will make it perfectly legal for a domestic abuser--and other
people convicted of violent and abhorrent crimes such as
felony child molestation--to possess these weapons. While
that might not be the intent of the bill authors, that will
be the real-life impact.
H.R. 2189/S. 1283 will have another chilling unintended
consequence: domestic abusers and others who are prohibited
under federal law from possessing firearms will modify
``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' to circumvent federal
laws and regulations, including those regulating so-called
`ghost guns.' In 2022, an adjudicated domestic abuser who was
prohibited from possessing firearms used a ghost gun to
murder his three daughters in a Sacramento church during a
supervised visitation then murdered the chaperone and killed
himself. Unable to pass a background check, he assembled his
own firearm from untraceable gun parts which were unregulated
at the time. Since that incident, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issued a regulation, upheld
by the United States Supreme Court in Bondi v. Vanderstock,
to require background checks and serial numbers on unfinished
frames and receivers and on some weapons parts kits. But only
firearms frames and receivers are thus regulated; removing
``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' from the definition
of `firearm' in 18 USC 921(a) would also allow ghost guns
modified from such devices to proliferate among individuals
with criminal records. And since only firearms frames and
receivers are regulated, kits to modify such devices into
fully-lethal projectile weapons would be entirely legal and
unregulated. Plus, while the bill stipulates that ``less-
than-lethal projectile devices . . . must be designed and
intended to be used in a manner that is not likely to cause
death or serious bodily injury,'' the bill fails to prohibit
or even acknowledge the inevitable modification of ``less-
than-lethal projectile devices'' into entirely-lethal
projectile devices. Once again, adjudicated domestic abusers
who are prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law
would be legally permitted to possess a firearm-equivalent,
with the same lethal capacity, due simply to semantics.
So, now, let us return to the depraved domestic and sexual
violence offenders whose heinous acts were detailed in the
opening paragraph. Despite their use of TASERs to physically
and sexually abuse their intimate partners and the attendant
criminal convictions that would prohibit them from possessing
firearms, immediately upon their release from prison these
individuals would legally be permitted under federal law to
acquire TASERs and other high-powered ``less-than-lethal
projectile devices'' that today are classified as firearms.
Moreover, once they obtained such weapons, there would be no
barrier in federal law to obtain the necessary parts to
modify them into lethal projectile weapons.
The purpose of this bill is truly perplexing. Not only will
H.R. 2189/S. 1283 arm adjudicated domestic abusers and others
who pose a danger to public safety, it in no way achieves its
stated goals and is a solution in search of a problem. The
federal classification of TASERs as firearms in no way
precludes law enforcement agencies from accessing TASERs,
just as it does not preclude them from accessing an array of
any of the ``less-than-lethal'' devices currently classified
as firearms. Law enforcement agencies are easily able to
procure firearms, including ``less-than-lethal projective
devices'' currently classified as firearms, with many
civilian requirements for purchasing firearms--and federal
taxes--being waived. And contrary to a further argument in
support of H.R. 2189/S. 1283, removing ``less-than-lethal
projectile devices'' from the federal definition of a
`firearm' will not decrease law enforcement's liability for
the use of deadly force. In terms of federal law, both
regulations and courts have held that, on its own, the use of
TASERs and other ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' does
not constitute deadly force. Moreover, even if that were not
the case, changing the federal definition of a firearm to
exclude TASERs and similar devices would in no way impact
liability for using deadly force, because such liability
outside the context of federal law enforcement is established
in state and local law, which H.R. 2189/S. 1283 cannot alter.
So what, then, is the purpose of H.R. 2189/S. 1283? Perhaps
it is to exempt individuals attempting to acquire TASERs and
similar devices from undergoing a background check. In that
case, the benefits to public safety are unclear, while we
have amply demonstrated the risks. Perhaps an individual
seeks to acquire such a device for self-protection. If the
individual does not have a prohibiting record, they should be
able to pass a firearms background check with no
inconvenience to themselves--most firearms background checks
take only a few minutes to complete. And if they do have a
prohibiting record, for the safety not only of victims and
survivors of domestic violence but for public safety more
broadly, they should not have access to either a ``less-than-
lethal'' device or a fully-lethal firearm.
For all of these reasons, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283, and
we urge you to oppose it as well.
Sincerely,
Jewish Women International; Catholics for Family Peace
Education and Research Initiative; Congregation of Our Lady
of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Hope Rise
Thrive; Interfaith Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence; Legal Momentum: The Women's Legal Defense and
Education Fund; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of
the Good Shepherd; Nuns Against Gun Violence; Safe Havens
Interfaith Partnership Against Domestic Violence and Elder
Abuse; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team; Ujima:
The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black
Community; United Church of Christ.

Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, Democrats will continue to support law
enforcement innovation and the adoption of tools that keep everyone
safer, but we must oppose this misguided legislation that does not
promote innovation or de-escalation and will only put our law
enforcement, those experiencing domestic abuse, and others in danger.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO score for this bill.

H.R. 2189, LAW-ENFORCEMENT INNOVATE TO DE-ESCALATE ACT, AS REPORTED BY
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON JANUARY 30, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of
dollars--
-----------------------------------
2026 2026-2030 2026-2035
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending (Outlays)........... * * *
Revenues............................ * * *
Increase or Decrease (-) in the * * *
Deficit............................
Spending Subject to Appropriation * * **
(Outlays)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* = between -$500,000 and $500,000.
** = not estimated.

Increases net direct spending in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036? No.
Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2036? *.
Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes.
Mandate Effects:
Contains intergovernmental mandate? No.
Contains private-sector mandate? No.

[[Page H2197]]

H.R. 2189 would amend the definition of firearm in the Gun
Control Act of 1968 to exclude certain nonlethal projectile
devices. Under current law, people who violate this Act could
be subject to criminal penalties. Criminal penalties are
recorded in the budget as revenues, deposited into the Crime
Victims Fund, and later spent without further appropriation.
Because CBO expects that the number of affected cases would
be small, we estimate that any decrease in revenues and
direct spending would be insignificant over the 2026-2035
period.
CBO estimates that any administrative costs for the
Department of Justice to implement H.R. 2189 would be
insignificant. Any related spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sean
Christensen. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel
Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I will spend the time I have remaining
responding to a few points made by my colleagues.
First of all, the U.S. States and territories already criminalize the
misuse of less-lethal devices through existing assault and battery
laws, and 34 States also restrict possession by violent felons and
domestic abusers.
Let me repeat that. It is illegal for violent felons and domestic
abusers to own or misuse less-lethal devices.
Mr. Speaker, our bill does not change that. H.R. 2189 preserves State
regulation and, in fact, may invite State legislatures to adjust their
statutes to harmonize with Federal law.
Second, the bill will not create ghost guns or other unregulated
firearms. The five-part test in this bill would sufficiently protect
against deregulation, and any product submitted to ATF for
classification will be scrutinized under the ATF's existing
classification process.
There is no loophole. This fear-mongering by colleagues on the other
side of the aisle this morning is nothing more than that.
Finally, police do, in fact, have difficulty obtaining these devices.
State and local police departments in States like California, New York,
and Texas will not buy the newest taser models due to the increased
liability.
This is not some hypothetical. Unless we make this change, State and
local police departments will have to settle for weaker, less-accurate
taser models due to this misclassification.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the Committee on the Judiciary
has expired.
The Chair now recognizes from the Committee on Ways and Means, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thompson), for 15 minutes.
The gentleman from Missouri is now recognized.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2189, which includes the
Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act, led by
Congressman David Schweikert.
This legislation shines a bright light on how our laws actually work
in the real world, where outdated policy can get in the way of safer
outcomes. At the end of the day, this is about encouraging tools that
help de-escalate conflict and reduce the chances of serious injury or
loss of life.
Across the country, law enforcement officers are asked to resolve
dangerous situations every day with the least amount of harm as
possible. Less-than-lethal devices, like tasers and similar
technologies, exist for that exact purpose.
Right now, some of these tools are treated in the tax code like
traditional firearms. That means that they can face extra taxes and
regulatory burdens that were never designed with such tools in mind.
The result is higher costs, more red tape, and slower adoption of
technology that can actually make encounters safer for both officers
and civilians.
This bill fixes that mismatch. It makes clear that less-than-lethal
weapons, such as tasers, should not be taxed like firearms. It gives
clarity to manufacturers; certainty to regulators; and, ultimately,
better access to lifesaving tools for law enforcement and the
communities that they serve.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Schweikert for his incredible
leadership on this bill that keeps our laws on pace with real-world
solutions that reduce harm and protect our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 0950

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 2189, the taser
bill. I would note that the bill doesn't mention tasers anywhere in the
bill, other than in the title.
I am a supporter of innovation. I am a supporter of de-escalation. I
am a supporter of tasers. My son is a deputy sheriff. I support giving
him and all law enforcement every tool needed to keep them and the
people they serve safe, but let me be clear: This bill does nothing to
help law enforcement access tasers. The fact is, this bill recklessly
and needlessly weakens both the National Firearms Act and the Gun
Control Act.
Under current law, tasers are not regulated by the National Firearms
Act. That is the law that regulates especially dangerous devices like
machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
Under current law, law enforcement in their official capacity are not
subject to the background check requirement in the Gun Control Act.
That is the law that prevents felons and domestic abusers from buying
weapons.
Under the current law, contrary to what the chairman just mentioned,
law enforcement is not subject to the excise tax for firearms or for
tasers.
Instead of helping law enforcement access tasers, this bill weakens
the law that regulates machine guns and opens the door to another flood
of unregulated, deadly ghost guns in our community. I don't know one
person in law enforcement who wants more untraceable ghost guns on our
streets.
Mr. Speaker, it is unclear what barriers law enforcement faces in
using long-range tasers. I have never received a complaint from law
enforcement in my district, nor have I seen any reports suggesting that
this is a problem. Long-range tasers are already used by law
enforcement--and listen to this--in all 50 States, and in all 50
States, law enforcement pays zero excise taxes on these devices. It is
important to know that long-range tasers can already be legally
purchased by civilians. All they need to do is pass a background check.
I support tasers. I support law enforcement. This bill does not
mention tasers once, and law enforcement is only mentioned in the
title. I don't know what they are trying to do, but it looks to me like
this might just be the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, have you ever had a piece of
legislation--we all go through this--where you have your friends on the
opposite side who say things, and you think, wow, I can't find that in
this piece of legislation. I guess we are all sometimes in the
pandering business.
About a year ago, in my community, we had a woman who came running
out of her house holding a knife. She was having some sort of horrible
mental health issue, and she was charging a police officer with a
knife. Before this type of technology, she would have lost her life
because a traditional firearm would have been used. They used a
nonlethal.
The reason it doesn't say ``taser'' in the language is because who
knows what next year's innovation is going to be. That is the whole
point: Can you have a society where, through the use of technology,
people don't die?
Why do the bill? Why do this portion of the bill for those of us on
the Committee on Ways and Means? Let's go back about 100 years ago. On
excise tax, you have 11 percent on the cartridge, and you have 10
percent on the unit itself. You collect the excise tax. Then you have
to go back to the tax-exempt government agency, have them fill out
their paperwork, submit it over, and then turn back to refund it. We
are just trying to clean up the bureaucracies that are 100 years out of
date.

[[Page H2198]]

It is not that hard. Make up your mind. Do you want broader adoption
of nonlethal technology so our brothers and sisters don't die?
Think of some of the crappy things that have happened in our society
over the last 10, 20 years because of the discharge of a firearm in law
enforcement. It does not need to be that way.
This is actually the second or third rewrite of this bill as we try
to make the anti-firearm groups happy. It turns out we would meet their
requests, and then they would change their standard. The problem or the
disagreement kept changing.
I don't know what the motivation is for playing games, but we bring
this to the floor with honest hearts. We want our brothers and sisters
not to die in this moment of violence. I would think there would be
this almost giddy optimism that technology is bringing us here.
Instead, it continues to be the moving excuse of why to oppose the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 10, 2025.
Hon. Pam Bondi,
Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Dan Driscoll,
Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Leider,
Chief Counsel, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Scott Bessent,
Secretary of the Treasury,
Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Cekada,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator, Alcohol, Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Bondi, Secretary Bessent, Director
Driscoll, Deputy Director Cekada, and Chief Counsel Leider,
and Administrator Ryan: As former law enforcement officers,
we write to share our concerns regarding the outdated federal
classification of modern less-than-lethal technologies and
provide an update on the strong legislative progress of H.R.
2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, and
H.R. 4242, the Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax
Modernization Act. H.R. 2189 has received significant
bipartisan support and was marked up and approved by the
House Judiciary Committee with favorable guidance on November
18, 2025.
H.R. 2189 addresses a serious and growing challenge:
outdated statutory language within the 1968 Gun Control Act
(GCA) that unintentionally classifies certain non-lethal
devices as firearms. As technology has advanced, this
decades-old framework has failed to keep pace, creating
regulatory outcomes that run counter to modern policing needs
and Congress's original intent.
A clear example is the TASER T10. Although engineered
expressly for less-than-lethal use, it has been classified as
a firearm solely because its propulsion system uses a small
primer charge to expel its non-lethal projectiles. Older
TASER models also contain a primer, but because those devices
utilize compressed air released from a punctured gas cylinder
to expel the projectile, they fall outside the GCA
definition. The T10's updated, gas-less propulsion system
triggers firearm classification under the statute, even
though the device is no more dangerous and, in many respects,
safer than previous models that remain unregulated under the
GCA.
This misclassification restricts access to modern,
effective less-than-lethal tools for law enforcement, tribal
agencies, correctional institutions, and healthcare
facilities. It also slows innovation in technologies
explicitly designed to de-escalate encounters and reduce the
need for deadly force, an outcome directly at odds with
public safety goals nationwide.
H.R. 2189 corrects this problem by establishing a
modernized definition of a ``less-than-lethal projectile
device'' and creating a DOJ-guided, multi-step classification
process to ensure these devices are evaluated consistently,
accurately, and safely. This framework ensures that only true
less-than-lethal devices fall within the updated category
while preventing unintended loopholes or misuse.
H.R. 4242 harmonizes tax statutes with the classification
framework in H.R. 2189. It ensures consistent federal
treatment across the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the
Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET), reduces
administrative burdens, and restores long-standing tax
treatment for federal law enforcement agencies. Today,
federal agencies such as the U.S. Marshal Service are not
exempt from paying the FAET on less-than-lethal devices.
Historical payments of the FAET tax from a federal law
enforcement agency, such as the U.S. Marshals Service, are
not revenue for the federal government because they are also
an expense. The reforms advanced by H.R. 4242 have previously
been scored as having a de minimis effect on federal revenue.
Modernizing policy for less-lethal capabilities has the
backing of a wide range of respected organizations
representing both law enforcement and community voices. These
include:
Law Enforcement & Public Safety Organizations
Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)
Major County Sheriffs of America
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
(NOBLE)
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association
(HAPCOA)
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Civic, Community & Reform-Focused Organizations
African American Mayors Association
Next Generation Alumni Leadership Council
Prince Jones Jr. Foundation
Coalition of Moms Against Police Brutality
This broad coalition reflects a shared understanding across
communities, law enforcement, and advocacy groups that
improving access to less-than-lethal tools is essential for
enhancing safety, reducing harm, and achieving better
outcomes in police-community interactions.
Given the bipartisan support in Congress, the backing of
leading law enforcement and community organizations, and the
clear public-safety benefits associated with resolving
misclassifications in federal law, we respectfully request
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of the
Treasury's (USDT) full support for H.R. 2189 and H.R. 4242.
DOJ and USDT's leadership are critical to ensuring federal
law aligns with modern technology, supports de-escalation,
and advances the safety of both officers and the communities
they serve.
If you have further questions, please contact Allie Esau,
Deputy Chief of Staff for Congressman Pete Stauber.
Sincerely,
Pete Stauber,
Troy Nehls,
John Rutherford,
Gabe Evans,
Clay Higgins,
Mike Ezell,
Members of Congress.
____

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2025.
Hon. Pam Bondi,
Attorney General of the United States,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Bondi: As the former Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, as well as the
Representative of Wyoming, home of the Wind River Reservation
and the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes, I am
writing to thank the Department of Justice (DOJ) for renewing
its efforts to prioritize public safety and justice
throughout Indian Country. In the spirit of helping to
improve public safety on Native American reservations, I am
writing to request the assistance and support of the U.S.
Department of Justice in advancing H.R. 2189, the Law-
Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act of 2025.
H.R. 2189 arises from a need to make less-than-lethal
projectile devices more accessible and affordable for all law
enforcement, and this legislation is of even more
significance for Native American tribal police departments.
If enacted, this legislation would ensure that Native
American tribal police departments are not subjected to
unnecessary and counterproductive roadblocks, delays, and
costs when acquiring less-than-lethal projectile devices.
For context, H.R. 2189 defines a less-than-lethal
projectile device to include only those devices that meet all
the following tests:
The device is not designed or intended to expel, and may
not be readily converted to accept and discharge, ammunition
commonly used in handguns, rifles, or shotguns.
The device is not designed or intended to expel, and may
not be readily converted to accept and discharge, any other
projectile at a velocity exceeding 500 feet per second.
The device is designed and intended to be used in a manner
that is not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.
The device does not accept, and is not able to be readily
modified to accept, an ammunition feeding device loaded
through the inside of a pistol grip.
The device does not accept, and is not able to be readily
modified to accept, an ammunition feeding device commonly
used in semiautomatic firearms.
This bill is needed because, in the antiquated definition
of a ``firearm'' under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (``GCA''),
a device that meets all of the above specifications can still
be classified as a firearm by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms & Explosives (``ATF'') if the device uses the action
of an explosive to expel a non-lethal projectile. This is
true even if that action of an explosive is merely a standard
small arms primer without any kind of propellant. Classifying
a less-than-lethal projectile device as a ``firearm'' makes
it more difficult, costly, and time-consuming to manufacture
innovative new technologies for law enforcement.
Additionally, law enforcement officers can be unfairly
subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for
discharging a ``firearm'' than a less-than-lethal device.
Despite these issues, federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies still have the ability to bulk order
less-than-lethal projectile devices and traditional lethal
firearms

[[Page H2199]]

directly to their facilities, as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 925(a)(1)
provides an exception for federal, state, and local
governments. This exception is routinely used by local,
state, and federal law enforcement agencies to cut down on
burdensome and unnecessary administrative waste. However, as
recently as late 2023, the ATF took the position that Native
American tribes and their law enforcement departments do not
qualify for the 18 U.S.C. Sec. 925(a)(1) exception based on
the plain statutory text.
Accordingly, whenever a Native American tribal police
department acquires any kind of firearm--including one that
is in actuality a less-than-lethal projectile device--for
duty use by its officers, it is treated as if it were a
private security company under our nation's federal firearms
laws. This means that the tribal police departments cannot
have a bulk order of firearms shipped directly to their
police department and instead must send an authorized
representative of the tribal police department to a Federal
Firearms Licensee (``FFL'') to do an over-the-counter
transfer. The only narrow exception to this general rule that
the ATF has identified is the so called ``cross-
deputization'' of an officer. Individual Native American
tribal police officers who are cross-deputized as a federal
law enforcement officer by the federal Bureau of Indian
Affairs (``BIA'') and have permission from their supervisor
at the BIA may utilize 18 U.S.C. Sec. 925(a)(1), but only for
ordering weapons for their direct individual use, and not for
their department.
This present policy has many civil and criminal
implications for tribal police departments, especially given
that this nuance is not widely explained to FFLs or the
public. Additionally, the exclusion of Native American tribes
and their law enforcement departments creates many logistical
difficulties in states where there are limits on the number
of firearms that can be acquired within a month, especially
for tribal reservations that are located in more than one
U.S. state. This present state of affairs is further
complicated by the fact that many tribal reservations are
geographically located in regions of the United States that
do not have FFLs close by.
H.R. 2189 represents a major step forward in creating
parity for Native American tribal police and ensuring that
all law enforcement agencies have access to innovative less-
than-lethal technology. I believe that H.R. 2189 and other
legislative proposals like it that seek to improve the
capabilities of Native American tribal police will make a
quantifiable difference in improving public safety for men,
women, and children who live in Indian Country. Thank you for
your attention to this matter. I, along with the sponsors and
co-sponsors of this legislation, look forward to
collaborating with your office on this issue.
Sincerely,
Harriet M. Hageman,
Member of Congress.
____

H.R. 4242: Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act

Lead Sponsors: Rep David Schweikert (R-AZ) and Rep Greg
Stanton (D-AZ)
50 Bipartisan Co-Sponsors across 23 states
Tax Policy Alignment:
The legislation aligns the new less-lethal category
outlined in H.R. 2189 with the National Firearms Act of 1934
(Tax) and harmonizes other tax code provisions to ensure all
less-lethal devices are taxed consistently. The CBO scored
the provision in the 118th congress and it has a de minimis
impact on the U.S. Treasury.

Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (``FAET'')

The bill will harmonize H.R. 2189 and continues the
exemption of certain less-than-lethal projectile devices,
shells, and cartridges designed for use in such devices from
the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET).
The legislation provision will have a de-minimis impact on
tax revenues because modern less-than-lethal tools and
technologies are almost exclusively sold to official
governmental end-users or exported for use by official
government end-users abroad. CBO scored in 2024 with a de-
minimus score.
The bill is a companion bill with HR 2189 (Fitzgerald/
Correa) and ensures a consistent and harmonious federal
approach to the Department of Treasury & the DOJ updating and
maintaining clear compliance guidance for less-than-lethal
projectile devices.
The legislation corrects a key issue for federal law
enforcement. Unlike the U.S. armed forces, state and local
law enforcement agencies such as the U.S. Marshal Service are
not exempt from paying the FAET on less-than lethal devices.
The legislation returns the U.S. Marshal Service and other
federal agencies to the status quo of not paying a ten or
eleven percent tax on the purchase of less-than-lethal
devices.
A historical payment of FAET tax from a federal law
enforcement agency such as the U.S. Marshal Service is not
actually revenue for the federal government because it is
also an expense.

Tax Policy--National Firearms Act of 1934

Legislation will harmonize H.R. 2189 and continues the
exemption of certain less-than-lethal projectile devices,
shells, and cartridges designed for use in such devices from
the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.
The NFA was implemented in response to mobsters' use of
machine guns in the 1930s. The NFA makes the product subject
to making and transfer taxes, transfer restrictions,
additional licensing and registration requirements, and even
more stringent recordkeeping standards.
This provision will significantly reduce the administrative
burdens and processing delays for less-than-lethal projectile
devices presently designed in a configuration that brings it
under the regulatory purview of the NFA.

H.R. 2189 establishes a technical fix establishing a Less-Lethal
classification process for the DOJ

H.R. 2189 simply distinguishes, advanced lifesaving less-
than-lethal projectile devices from firearms without touching
the historical definition. H.R. 2189 establishes a clear
classification process for the Department of Justice to use
when evaluating a ``less-than-lethal projectile device.'' A
device must pass all of the following tests to qualify:
Are designed or intended to be used in a manner not likely
to cause death or serious bodily injury;
Cannot expel (or be readily converted to expel) any
projectile at a velocity over 500 feet per second;
Cannot use (or be readily converted to use) ammunition in a
handgun, rifle & shotgun (no bullets);
Cannot accept (or be readily converted to accept) a
magazine into the device's grip; and
Cannot use (or be readily converted to use) magazines for
semiautomatic firearms.
The legislation requires that the Attorney General render a
classification decision within 90 days of a request submitted
to ATF for a determination.
The federal definition of a firearm under the Gun Control
Act of 1968 is currently:
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is
designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile
by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of
any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an
antique firearm.
As amended by HR 2189, the definition of a firearm would
be:
(A) any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily
be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C)
any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any
destructive device. Such term does not include an antique
firearm or a less-than-lethal projectile device (as defined
in the multi-part test discussed above).

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we are barely 2 months into this new year,
and yet we have already had 35 mass shootings, devastating communities
across the country.
If only two or three people are killed, it hardly makes national news
anymore. We can be sure after every major incident that Republicans
will offer their thoughts and prayers and then proceed to obstruct
anyone who wants to do anything to increase gun safety.
Instead of addressing the serious tragedy, the illness that plagues
our country with gun violence, Republicans today propose a new
loophole, a dangerous loophole for so-called less-than-lethal devices.
Once they are no longer considered firearms under the Federal
definition, protective rules go away. That means no background checks.
That means no serial number on the equipment so that the police can
trace it if a criminal is using it.
I have great respect for the gentleman from Arizona, but using his
example of a woman coming at a police officer with a knife, this bill
does nothing for the police officer. He can get full access to less-
than-lethal weapons now, but the woman, if she had a mental health
problem and was barred from a firearm, she could now go buy one of
these less-than-lethal devices.
In fact, it is not just one woman in Arizona. There are 5 million
convicted felons in this country. There are 7 million people with
mental health conditions. They are all barred from getting a firearm,
and this dangerous loophole is designed to ensure that they now will
see a giant sign saying, ``Come get your weapon,'' because they no
longer will be prohibited from getting one of these weapons, while the
police officers, the law enforcement officers across this country, get
no benefit. In fact, their job is made more difficult because these
weapons can no longer be traced when used by one of these convicted
felons who chooses to engage in other criminal activity.
These less-than-lethal devices, as they have been labeled, include
tasers. There is one story after another, horrible stories, with
details of criminals who have used tasers as they raped and abused
their victims.
Beanbag rounds, we had those used in Austin against a number of
teenagers. They may be called less than lethal,

[[Page H2200]]

but these teens required multiple lifesaving surgeries to bring them
back to decent health, some with serious disabilities.
With homemade alterations, which can occur with these less-than-
lethal weapons, they can become more rapid-fire. They can become much
more dangerous and still untraceable weapons.
There are so many things that we could be doing in this Congress
concerning gun safety. Mr. Thompson has requested a universal
background check--not to deny anyone, but to ensure that someone with a
mental health condition or some other condition, someone you do not
want getting a gun, to ensure safety through that background check.
That has been widely supported by law enforcement.
There is a concern about the weapons of war that are brought onto our
streets and kill multiple people. There are a number of reasonable
measures that have been advocated by one group after another across
this country to make our streets safer and to have parents, when they
send their children off to school, know they will come home and won't
have to spend all their time fearing the kind of violence that we saw
in Uvalde, Texas, that led to the deaths of so many little children.

{time} 1000

These are things that Congress could be working on right now. This
loophole that will allow more people who should not have a gun because
of their criminal history or their mental health condition will allow
them to get that weapon. Real public safety means fewer weapons on our
streets, not more loopholes.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
Ms. Tenney. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is about time that we support the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-
Escalate Act. This crucial legislation ensures that law enforcement
officers have access to the best, less-than-lethal technologies for de-
escalation.
Under current law, certain new less-than-lethal technologies are
included under the National Firearms Act, NFA, a law designed to
regulate firearms. However, due to the definition of firearms under the
NFA, this includes less-than-lethal devices such as the new TASER 10.
This bill will modernize the NFA to include the less-than-lethal
category to ensure that devices like the TASER 10, that are not
designated to be lethal, are not included under the NFA's taxes and
regulations design for firearms for use by municipalities, not
individuals.
I am honored to be a cosponsor of this bill along with, I think, at
least 22 commonsense Democrats, and I strongly supported its passage
through the House Ways and Means committee.
However, I am disappointed that so many of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle refuse to support this commonsense bill. Instead,
they want to politicize and talk about completely unrelated matters.
While some on the other side resort to fear-mongering, House
Republicans and, as I said 22, I believe, commonsense Democrats, are
committed to ensuring law enforcement has the tools and resources they
need to keep our communities safe.
Every major police organization is supporting the passage of this
legislation, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association, the Major County Sheriffs
Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives. This is a pro-police, pro-community, and lifesaving piece
of legislation.
I urge the Senate to vote on this bill expediently. I thank
Representative Fitzgerald, Speaker Johnson, Leader Scalise, and, of
course, Chairman Smith for bringing this bill to the floor.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, my good friend from New York
was talking about how important this is for law enforcement to have
access to these types of tasers. As I said in my opening remarks, all
50 States already have access to these tasers.
As a matter of fact, in New York, the gentlewoman who just spoke
talked about their need to have them. The New York Police Department
uses these tasers and the Syracuse Police Department uses these tasers.
As a matter of fact, their use is funded by a State grant. The Ramapo
Police Department uses these tasers.
In Arizona, where my good friend Mr. Schweikert is from, the Phoenix
Police Department uses these tasers. The Mesa Police Department uses
these tasers. The Scottsdale Police Department uses these tasers.
This is not about providing access for law enforcement to use these
tasers. They are already used in all 50 States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Chu).
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, for the past year, Republicans have done
nothing to address rising grocery prices, rising energy prices, and
rising healthcare prices. What is the one thing they are willing to do?
Making tasers more accessible to dangerous people. It is unbelievable.
On January 21, 2023, my hometown of Monterey Park, California,
suffered a mass shooting that killed 11 of our neighbors. It remains
the deadliest mass shooting in Los Angeles County's history.
Monterey Park, and every community across this country, deserves to
be safe from violence, whether from guns, tasers, or anything else, but
Republicans are working to make our communities less safe by handing
over access of weapons to individuals we know should not have them and
making them far harder for law enforcement to track.
We should be focused on keeping our communities safe, not voting to
flood our streets with even more weapons.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, you absolutely cannot make this
stuff up that you are hearing from the other side of the aisle. When
they talk about the affordability crisis, let's talk about the
affordability crisis.
Gas prices are the lowest they have been in 5 years. Inflation is the
lowest it has been in 4 years. Just in the first year of President
Trump, wages grew more than all 4 years under Joe Biden. We are in an
inflation crisis that President Trump inherited because of the spending
spree, the $10 trillion spending spree, that the Democrats did when
they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker. I have a speech written for this today. I
am going to speak from the heart.
As one of just a few people that have represented their constituents
in Congress, I was one of the few that wore the uniform. I was one of
the few that was shot while off-duty. I was one of the few that had a
gun malfunction when it was pointed at my head. I was one of the few
that ran into the fire. I was one of the few that was on our tackle
response team.
When they talk about tasers, it is a tool that we can use in law
enforcement to save lives, not only the officer, not only the subject
or the suspect, but bystanders.
For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try to defend the
philosophy that we don't need those or this piece of legislation that
involves the tax code isn't legit, it is just atrocious.
Here is a list of people that support it: The African American Mayors
Association. The Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association,
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order
of Police, Major County Sheriffs of America, Peace Officers Research
Association of California, and so many others.
You can ask every law enforcement officer on the streets of America
whether they want this to move forward and pass and become law. The
answer is yes because the technology continues to grow and grow.
When I first started in law enforcement, we had one shot at the
taser. When we would cross draw, flip the switch up, bring it up,
taser, taser, taser. We only had one. Later on in my career, we had two
options. This gives us, in some cases, 10 options to subdue a subject
that is violent and is going to either harm the officer, bystanders,
or, more importantly, themselves.
Cross draw, flip up, taser, taser, taser.
This is a good bill, and my colleagues on the other sides of the
aisle know it

[[Page H2201]]

is a good bill. In fact, one of the cosponsors won't even come and talk
about it because his majority, Mr. Speaker, doesn't want it. This is
the extension of defund the police. I have had it.

{time} 1010

We need to protect law enforcement. We are the ones who call them
when we are in harm. They come to the fight. They will be there when we
call 911.
Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't support
something that defends the cops and helps them with another tool on
their tool belt to make sure they are safe, the subject is safe, and
any bystanders are safe. It is unconscionable.
This is a great bill. I wholeheartedly support it, and I hope my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will too.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank Mr. Stauber for his time in public safety. I thank him for
being a cop. We all owe a deep gratitude to those in uniform who keep
us safe.
As I mentioned when I first made my opening statement, my son is a
cop. I appreciate him, and I appreciate all his colleagues.
However, it is disingenuous to stand on this floor and say that this
bill is needed so cops can have access to this particular type of taser
technology.
Mr. Stauber is from Minnesota. I just want to point out that
Minnesota uses this. The Minnetonka Police Department uses this
technology. The Minneapolis Police Department uses these tasers. The
St. Charles Police Department uses these tasers. The Hastings Police
Department uses these tasers. The Brooklyn Park Police Department uses
these tasers.
This is not about police not having access to this taser technology.
They have it, and they can use it. It is not about that. Please focus
on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, 90 seconds is the shortest I have ever
spoken.
Mr. Speaker, if someone is actually listening to our discussion, the
Democrats have made it clear: Hey, lots of law enforcement have this
product.
Wonderful. We are trying to explain that this is a segment of the tax
code we are trying to make easier and more efficient. Once again, just
read the bill. It is remarkably simple.
Mr. Speaker, you have an excise tax. You have to go through all these
steps to collect it then to refund it.
So my friend from California--he is a good guy. We have done a number
of bills together over the years--made my argument. This is actually in
wide distribution across the country, and there is another generation
of technology, hopefully, coming and another one coming.
It is more than just the taser in the hand. It may be the thing on
the wall that protects my synagogue or my school or those things. There
is a revolution of nonlethal coming so that people don't have to die.
I thank the gentleman for explaining that it is in wide distribution.
Now let's deal with the things in the tax code that add bureaucracy and
costs. If we both support the fact that these should be in the hands of
people protecting our public, then let's remove some of the bureaucracy
that makes it more expensive.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for making my point.
If it is about the tax code, then let's address that. That is not
what this bill does. This opens a huge loophole that will allow people
who are a danger to themselves and others to have access to devices
that none of us believe that they should have access to.
If it was all about what Mr. Schweikert said, then why didn't the
majority take my amendment that I filed that would have taken the ghost
gun loophole issue off the table?
If it is about the tax code, then let's deal with the tax code.
However, as Mr. Doggett made the argument about domestic abusers, these
are people who perpetrate the most heinous of crimes. That is why when
this House and Senate passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we
closed the boyfriend loophole to ensure that abusive boyfriends were
blocked from accessing firearms, the same way we block abusive husbands
from getting their hands on weapons.
The Gun Control Act is the Federal statute that requires background
checks which block these abusers from getting their hands on firearms.
This bill weakens the Gun Control Act and would allow convicted
domestic abusers to purchase long-range tasers and ghost guns. That is
not what my colleagues on the other side are suggesting that they want
to do.
So why don't we deal with the tax issue? We can do it. The chairman
of the Ways and Means Committee is right here. That is an easy one for
us to fix. But don't create a loophole big enough to drive a truckload
of ghost guns through.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Again, this bill does not do what my colleagues on the other side are
suggesting that it does. They say that police need this bill in order
to have access to and use this new taser, this new innovation in
tasers. As I have pointed out a number of times, everyone who has
spoken, in their home State they use these tasers. The police
departments have access to these, and they use them.
As a matter of fact, all 50 States use these tasers today. I have a
list of all those.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that list of States.

Sampling of State and Local Law Enforcement and Correctional Adoption
of Axon's Taser 10 (Firearm-Classified Taser)

Despite the claim from proponents of H.R. 2189 and H.R.
4242 that the bills are needed for state and local law
enforcement to be able to obtain and use Taser 10, in
reality, law enforcement departments across the country in
every state have already obtained and use these devices--
making this legislation unnecessary.

ALABAMA

Baldwin County Sheriff's Office
Spanish Fort Police Department
Mobile Police Department

ALASKA

Anchorage Police Department
Kodiak Police Department
Bristol Bay Borough Police Department

ARIZONA

Phoenix Police Department
Another article on procurement
Mesa Police Department
Scottsdale Police Department

ARKANSAS

Little Rock Police Department
Pulaski County Sheriff's Office
Van Buren Police Department
Bryant Police Department

CALIFORNIA

San Diego Police Department
Another article on procurement
Santa Clara Sheriff's Office: A pilot program in county
jails
Los Angeles Sheriff's Office: --``a CEW deployment is an
intermediate use of force tool''
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Official Temple
Station
Murrieta Police Department
Desert Hot Springs Police Department
Hemet Police Department
Modesto Police Department
Orange County Sheriff's Office
Santa Ana Police Department
Anaheim Police Department

COLORADO

Denver Police Department
Denver Regional Transportation District
Montezuma Police Department Taser-10 Challenge Coins
Montezuma County Sheriff's Office
Cortez Police Department
Mountain View Police Department
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Cherry Hills Village Police Department
Fort Collins Police Department

CONNECTICUT

Wallingford Police Department
Fairfield Police Department
Tybee Island Police Department
East Hartford Police Department
Hartford Police Department

DELAWARE

Delaware County Park Police Department
Wilmington Police Department

FLORIDA

Bradenton Police Department
Oviedo Police Department
Naples Police Department
Port St. Lucie Police Department
Seminole County Sheriff's Office

GEORGIA

Dougherty County Sheriff's Office

[[Page H2202]]

Clayton County Police Department
Pelham Police Department
St. Mary's Police Department
Trenton (GA) Police Department
Nashville (GA) Police Department
Dekalb County Department of Police Services

HAWAII

Hawaii Department of Law Enforcement
Hawaii County Police Department

IDAHO

Chelan County Sheriff's Office
Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training

ILLINOIS

Oregon City (IL) Police Department
Chicago Police Department
Woodstock Police Department
Joliet Police Department
City of Dekalb Police Department
Monmouth Police Department: Funded by a state grant.
McCook Police Department: Funded by a state grant.
Rockton Police Department

INDIANA

Clarksville Police Department
Bloomington Police Department
Rockville Police Department

IOWA

Polk County Sheriff's Office
North Liberty Police Department: ``Use of Force Report''
says Electronic Control Devices are not a ``deadly force.''

KANSAS

Riley County Police Department
Wichita Police Department
Topeka Police Department: Policy and Procedural Manual says
``ECW is a less lethal force alternative.''
Rawlins County Sheriff's Office

KENTUCKY

Louisville Police Department
Newport Police Department
Ashland Police Department
Fort Wright Police Department

LOUISIANA

New Orleans Police Department
Shreveport City Marshal's Office
Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office
Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office
Central Police Department

MAINE

Old Towne Police Department
Maine Criminal Justice Academy: Approved Taser 10 as an
authorized ``less than lethal'' device statewide.

MARYLAND

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services
Bladensburg Police Department
University Park Police Department
University of Maryland, Baltimore Police Department: The
`Use of Force Pyramid' says tasers are a Level 5 of 6 (6
being ``deadly force'').

MASSACHUSETTS

Quincy Police Department
Chelmsford Police Department
Newton Police Department
Boston Police Department

MICHIGAN

Dearborn Police Department
Chelsea Police Department
Grand Traverse County Sheriff's Office
Macomb County Sheriff's Office
Muskegon County Sheriff's Office
Canton Township Police Department

MINNESOTA

Minnetonka Police Department
Minneapolis Police Department
St. Charles Police Department
Hastings Police Department
Brooklyn Park Police Department

MISSISSIPPI

Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol
Laurel Police Department
Meridian Police Department
University of Mississippi University Police and Campus
Safety
Ridgeland Police Department

MISSOURI

Saint Louis Police Department
Springfield Police Department: The `Use of Force' chart
says tasers are a Level 4 of 6 (6 being ``deadly force'').
Ballwin Police Department
Ferguson Police Department
Lake Winnebago Police Department
Jefferson College Law Enforcement Academy

MONTANA

Missoula Police Department
Montana Department of Corrections: Offers training courses
for ``new probation and parole officers and others needing
TASER 10 Certification.''
Billings Probation and Parole Officers training to prepare
for use.
Lake County Forest Preserves Police Department

NEBRASKA

Lincoln Police Department
Clay County Sheriff's Office

NEVADA

Sparks Police Department

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Manchester Police Department
Londonderry Police Department
Portsmouth Police Department

NEW JERSEY

The state government has explicitly approved the use of
Taser 10
Newark Police Department

NEW MEXICO

Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office
Santa Fe Police Department
Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy

NEW YORK

New York City Police Department
Syracuse Police Department: Funded by a state grant
Ramapo Police Department

NORTH CAROLINA

Raleigh Police Department
Wake County Sheriff's Office
North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections
Goldsboro Police Department

NORTH DAKOTA

North Dakota Highway Patrol
Ward County Sheriff's Department
Minnehaha County Corrections

OHIO

Ohio State Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
DRC wants to expand use to all Ohio State prisons.
Cleveland Police Department
Norwood Police Department
Ashland County Sheriff's Office
Fairfield Township Police Department
Franklin Township Police Department

OKLAHOMA

Bartlesville Police Department
Comanche County Sheriff's Department
Temple Police Department
Broken Arrow Police Department

OREGON

Eagle Point Police Department
Tualatin Police Department
Astoria Police Department

PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania State University Police and Public Safety
Department
Upper Gwynedd Township Police Department
Scranton Police Department
Waynesboro Police Department
Bucks County Sheriff's Office

RHODE ISLAND

South Kingstown Police Department
Triverton Police Department
Hopkinton Police Department

SOUTH CAROLINA

Florence County Sheriff's Office
Moncks Corner Police Department
Hardeeville Police Department

SOUTH DAKOTA

Watertown Police Department
Somerset Police Department
Codington County Sheriff's Office: Includes County jail
staff

TENNESSEE

Nashville Police Department
Clarksville Police Department
Monterey Police Department
Loudon County Sheriff's Office

TEXAS

Austin Police Department
El Paso Police Department
Ennis Police Department
Plano Police Department
Fredericksburg City Police Department
League City Police Department
Another article on procurement
Guadalupe County Sheriff's Office
City of Dallas Police Department
DFW Airport Department of Public Safety

UTAH

Salt Lake City Police Department
Kanab City Police Department
Cedar City Police Department

VERMONT

St. Albans

VIRGINIA

Falls Church Police Department
Virginia Commonwealth University Police Department
City of Fredericksburg Police Department

WASHINGTON

Seattle Police Department
Bellevue Police Department
Anacortes Police Department
Everett Police Department
Thurston County Sheriff's Office
Clark County Sheriff's Office

WEST VIRGINIA

Spencer Police Department

WISCONSIN

Waukesha Police Department: In Rep. Fitzgerald's district
Brookfield Police Department: In Rep. Fitzgerald's district
River Hills Police Department: `Use of Force' guidelines
says Taser 10 is considered ``non-lethal force.''
Grand Chute Police Department
Another article on procurement

WYOMING

Green River Police Department
Laramie County Sheriff's Office

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Also, on the issue of domestic abusers,
the idea that this body would make it easier for domestic abusers to
get new technology in tasers is just beyond explanation. We should be
extremely worried about these people getting this type of technology.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a February 9, 2026, to House
leadership.

[[Page H2203]]

February 9, 2026.
Speaker Mike Johnson,
House of Representatives.
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries,
House of Representatives.
To Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: In 2014, a
Washington, DC resident (name withheld to protect the
victim's privacy) abused his wife with a TASER, repeatedly
shocking her in the face and head. While she was still
suffering the effects of the TASER, he repeatedly hit her in
the head with a baseball bat, punched her multiple times in
the face, and then sexually assaulted her. In 2018, a New
Jersey man threatened his girlfriend repeatedly with a TASER
in the course of raping her several times over multiple
incidents. Eventually, he carried through with his threat,
tasing her in the neck and raping and sodomizing her.
These incidents are both horrific and emblematic of a
larger issue: domestic abusers' use of weapons to exert power
and coercive control over their victims. Abusers threaten the
victim, the children, pets, and others. As a nation, we
should erect more barriers to domestic abusers acquiring
weapons, not demolish existing protections. But that is
exactly what H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would do by undermining laws
designed to keep so-called ``less-than-lethal projectile
devices,'' such as TASERs classified as firearms, and ghost
guns out of the hands of adjudicated abusers.
To be clear, despite their marketing, TASERs are not always
``less-than-lethal,'' as claimed in H.R. 2189. Perhaps they
are less lethal than other firearms, but between 2012 and
2021, 538 people were killed by TASERs or stun guns. And
studies that have found TASERs have only minor health impacts
were not only primarily funded by the manufacturer, they did
not mimic real-life situations, having exclusively healthy
subjects, a short exposure time, and no long-term follow-up.
Moreover, domestic violence continues or for some populations
even escalates during pregnancy, and there is evidence that
the use of a TASER on a pregnant woman can cause her to
miscarry.
Under current federal law, adjudicated domestic abusers
(with a few notable exceptions) are prohibited from
possessing TASERs that are classified as firearms in addition
to ghost guns and traditional firearms. Removing such TASERs
and other ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' modified to
be lethal from the definition of a ``firearm'' in 18 U.S.C.
921(a) will not only allow adjudicated domestic abusers to
acquire projectile weapons without a background check, it
will make it perfectly legal for a domestic abuser--and other
people convicted of violent and abhorrent crimes such as
felony child molestation--to possess these weapons. While
that might not be the intent of the bill authors, that will
be the real-life impact.
H.R. 2189/S. 1283 will have another chilling unintended
consequence: domestic abusers and others who are prohibited
under federal law from possessing firearms will modify
``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' to circumvent federal
laws and regulations, including those regulating so-called
`ghost guns.' In 2022, an adjudicated domestic abuser who was
prohibited from possessing firearms used a ghost gun to
murder his three daughters in a Sacramento church during a
supervised visitation then murdered the chaperone and killed
himself. Unable to pass a background check, he assembled his
own firearm from untraceable gun parts which were unregulated
at the time. Since that incident, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issued a regulation, upheld
by the United States Supreme Court in Bondi v. Vanderstock,
to require background checks and serial numbers on unfinished
frames and receivers and on some weapons parts kits. But only
firearms frames and receivers are thus regulated; removing
``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' from the definition
of ``firearm'' in 18 U.S.C. 921(a) would also allow ghost
guns modified from such devices to proliferate among
individuals with criminal records. And since only firearms
frames and receivers are regulated, kits to modify such
devices into fully-lethal projectile weapons would be
entirely legal and unregulated. Plus, while the bill
stipulates that ``less-than-lethal projectile devices . . .
must be designed and intended to be used in a manner that is
not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury,'' the
bill fails to prohibit or even acknowledge the inevitable
modification of ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' into
entirely-lethal projectile devices. Once again, adjudicated
domestic abusers who are prohibited from possessing firearms
under federal law would be legally permitted to possess a
firearm-equivalent, with the same lethal capacity, due simply
to semantics.
So, now, let us return to the depraved domestic and sexual
violence offenders whose heinous acts were detailed in the
opening paragraph. Despite their use of TASERs to physically
and sexually abuse their intimate partners and the attendant
criminal convictions that would prohibit them from possessing
firearms, immediately upon their release from prison these
individuals would legally be permitted under federal law to
acquire TASERs and other high-powered ``less-than-lethal
projectile devices'' that today are classified as
firearms. Moreover, once they obtained such weapons, there
would be no barrier in federal law to obtain the necessary
parts to modify them into lethal projectile weapons.
The purpose of this bill is truly perplexing. Not only will
H.R. 2189/S. 1283 arm adjudicated domestic abusers and others
who pose a danger to public safety, it in no way achieves its
stated goals and is a solution in search of a problem. The
federal classification of TASERs as firearms in no way
precludes law enforcement agencies from accessing TASERs,
just as it does not preclude them from accessing an array of
any of the ``less-than-lethal'' devices currently classified
as firearms. Law enforcement agencies are easily able to
procure firearms, including ``less-than-lethal projective
devices'' currently classified as firearms, with many
civilian requirements for purchasing firearm--and federal
taxes--being waived. And contrary to a further argument in
support of H.R. 2189/S. 1283, removing ``less-than-lethal
projectile devices'' from the federal definition of a
``firearm'' will not decrease law enforcement's liability for
the use of deadly force. In terms of federal law, both
regulations and courts have held that, on its own, the use of
TASERs and other ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' do
not constitute deadly force. Moreover, even if that were not
the case, changing the federal definition of a firearm to
exclude TASERs and similar devices would in no way impact
liability for using deadly force, because such liability
outside the context of federal law enforcement is established
in state and local law, which H.R. 2189/S. 1283 cannot alter.
So what, then, is the purpose of H.R. 2189/S. 1283? Perhaps
it is to exempt individuals attempting to acquire TASERs and
similar devices from undergoing a background check. In that
case, the benefits to public safety are unclear, while we
have amply demonstrated the risks. Perhaps an individual
seeks to acquire such a device for self-protection. If the
individual does not have a prohibiting record, they should be
able to pass a firearms background check with no
inconvenience to themselves--most firearms background checks
take only a few minutes to complete. And if they do have a
prohibiting record, for the safety not only of victims and
survivors of domestic violence but for public safety more
broadly, they should not have access to either a ``less-than-
lethal'' device or a fully-lethal firearm.
For all of these reasons, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283, and
we urge you to oppose it as well. If you have any questions,
please reach out.
Sincerely,
Jewish Women International; Catholics for Family Peace
Education and Research Initiative; Congregation of Our Lady
of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Hope Rise
Thrive; Interfaith Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence; Legal Momentum: The Women's Legal Defense and
Education Fund; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of
the Good Shepherd; Nuns Against Gun Violence; Safe Havens
Interfaith Partnership Against Domestic Violence and Elder
Abused; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team; Ujima:
The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black
Community; United Church of Christ.

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, for folks who make the
argument that people are afraid, they want to have the newest taser
technology to keep themselves safe in the civilian space, I understand
that. They are not precluded from being able to purchase and have this
new technology in tasers. They just have to get a background check to
make sure they aren't domestic abusers and to make sure they are not
prohibited individuals who couldn't otherwise get firearms.
This bill does a lot more than the proponents are suggesting that it
does. If, in fact, they want to deal with the issues that they stood on
this floor today and talked about, they are all good issues, everybody
will agree with that, let's do it. Let's draw the bill to deal with
those issues. We could have done that had the majority accepted my bill
that would have closed the ghost gun loophole, but they chose not to.
If they really want to make this bill do what they are claiming, then
let's write a bill that does that. This bill doesn't do it. This puts
American communities at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, based on the comments that we have been hearing from the
other side, it is proof that they didn't take the time to read the
seven-page bill that we are debating on the floor. That is because the
accusations and the comments you have heard, Mr. Speaker, are clearly
not identifiable of the legislation that is being debated.
This bill comes down to basic common sense. Our tax code should not
put unnecessary barriers in front of technologies designed to reduce
harm.
Representative Schweikert's legislation helps align our tax policy
with our public safety goals. It supports innovation, it encourages
less lethal means of law enforcement, and removes an outdated burden
that never made much sense to begin with.

[[Page H2204]]

When Congress has the chance to make a straightforward fix that can
contribute to safer communities and smarter policy, we should take it.
I commend Congressman Schweikert for his leadership, and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill. I congratulate the 22 brave Democrats
who believe in less lethal force by sponsoring this legislation. I just
wish there was more of that party.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1020

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 185, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 70]

YEAS--233

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Beatty
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Bishop
Boebert
Bost
Boyle (PA)
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Clarke (NY)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Correa
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzalez, V.
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Gray
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Landsman
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Nehls
Newhouse
Norcross
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Patronis
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Scholten
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Tran
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Vasquez
Veasey
Vindman
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NAYS--185

Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Gomez
Goodlander
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Pappas
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Velazquez
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Castro (TX)
Dingell
Goldman (NY)
Gonzales, Tony
Gottheimer
Hunt
Luna
Moulton
Murphy
Norman
Pingree
Swalwell

Waters

{time} 1045

Mr. COURTNEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. PEREZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Ms. KELLY of Illinois changed her vote from ``present'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today due
to an urgent commitment in my district. Had I been present, I would
have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 70.

____________________